Pedro's Corner

Half-formed posts, inchoate philosophies, and the germs of deep thought.

Re: Pedro's Corner

Postby iambiguous » Tue Oct 27, 2020 4:37 am

Mowk wrote:A swift slice to the quick of it. Distraction coupled with personal assault. Bully bully.


Again, I can go either way. Straight up philosophy exchanged intelligently and civilly or no holds barred rant.

Go ahead anyone take me up on it.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382

tiny nietzsche: what's something that isn't nothing, but still feels like nothing?
iambiguous: an exchange between Pedro and Smears?
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 38629
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Pedro's Corner

Postby Mowk » Tue Oct 27, 2020 4:42 am

Bigs, you should not be referred to as bigs. "Iam" seems the more fitting contraction.

There are none with which I have no argument. Just folks for which I have fewer.

I'd have no resistance to your invitation to dance, but it would not be a circumstance of taking you "up" on anything.
Mowk
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2186
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2012 8:17 pm
Location: In a state of excessive consumption

Re: Pedro's Corner

Postby Pedro I Rengel » Tue Oct 27, 2020 2:44 pm

Pedro I Rengel wrote:You also never replied to this:

Pedro I Rengel wrote:
iambiguous wrote:Well, maybe individual subjects are the ones who profess to know things, but the things that they profess to know [assuming human autonomy] are either true objectively for all of us or they are not.


Why not?

iambiguous wrote:We'll need a context.



But when you made that very objectivist assertion, you didn't need one. How about you explain why not without one as well?
User avatar
Pedro I Rengel
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6961
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2018 2:55 pm

Re: Pedro's Corner

Postby Pedro I Rengel » Tue Oct 27, 2020 2:47 pm

iambiguous wrote:
Pedro I Rengel wrote:What it has to do with it, is that you unfailingly assail anybody that posts a view on something with your mad filtering program of anti-objectivist dasein or whatnot, granted when you do answer which isn't always. That view only has to have the faintest plausible attachment to objectivism, for you to do this.

But when it was a frank objectivist view expounded, you not only didn't assail him, which nobody can answer everybody all the time, but you actually did jump in... to congratulate him and wish him luck!

When he called you a "comrade," clearly signaling that you were in the same group of deranged objectivists, you remained silent.


Okay, he creates this fictional character who comes onto the thread spouting a devotion to Communism. At no time do I ever embrace "his" own arguments and concur that Communism is the one true path. In fact, to the best of my recollection my only response to "him" was an assessment of phoneutria.

Given that, what in the world can "he" be thanking me for except for my warning about her? I was wishing "him" luck in "his" dealings with her.

Or is Pedro phoneutria too?!


I'm not nearly beautiful enough.

You side stepped the argument again, iambiam, for some reason... It was this one:

Pedro I Rengel wrote:What it has to do with it, is that you unfailingly assail anybody that posts a view on something with your mad filtering program of anti-objectivist dasein or whatnot, granted when you do answer which isn't always. That view only has to have the faintest plausible attachment to objectivism, for you to do this.

But when it was a frank objectivist view expounded, you not only didn't assail him, which nobody can answer everybody all the time, but you actually did jump in... to congratulate him and wish him luck!

When he called you a "comrade," clearly signaling that you were in the same group of deranged objectivists, you remained silent.
User avatar
Pedro I Rengel
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6961
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2018 2:55 pm

Re: Pedro's Corner

Postby Pedro I Rengel » Tue Oct 27, 2020 2:49 pm

iambiguous wrote:
Mowk wrote:A swift slice to the quick of it. Distraction coupled with personal assault. Bully bully.


Again, I can go either way. Straight up philosophy exchanged intelligently and civilly or no holds barred rant.


Lol, this would be easier to believe if you ever exhibited the former. But that's ok, we're dealing with facts here and demonstrating things. I will wait for your answers to my previous posts, if you have them, in this really strange saga of you deciding to visit ol' Pedro's Corner.
User avatar
Pedro I Rengel
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6961
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2018 2:55 pm

Re: Pedro's Corner

Postby Pedro I Rengel » Tue Oct 27, 2020 2:51 pm

Markets are calm today. Calm seas don't move sails. But may's be we can make some headway, moving carefully. The saga that was suggested some weeks ago has come to an evident crossroads, and nobody knows whether to buy, to sell, or even to stay too still. None of us were reading the news, it was just the saga the price action suggested, and that did indeed play out.

A lot of upward potential, too much recent downward pressure... where to go.

We sit silently by.
User avatar
Pedro I Rengel
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6961
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2018 2:55 pm

Re: Pedro's Corner

Postby Pedro I Rengel » Tue Oct 27, 2020 2:56 pm

I would also like to say, if anybody has any interest in this trading stuff, whatever their persuasions (republican, communist, ostrich lover, whatever), they can give me a pm any time. I find it's extremely suitable for intellectual types that also have some level of aversion for "peopleses," which I find is most of our ilk.

I'm not saying that there is a strong current of dishonesty and ill intention running loose on these boards, and maybe boards in general, but just go ahead and do it via pm. I will be more than happy to reply.
Last edited by Pedro I Rengel on Tue Oct 27, 2020 2:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Pedro I Rengel
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6961
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2018 2:55 pm

Re: Pedro's Corner

Postby iambiguous » Tue Oct 27, 2020 2:56 pm

Pedro I Rengel wrote:
iambiguous wrote:Well, maybe individual subjects are the ones who profess to know things, but the things that they profess to know [assuming human autonomy] are either true objectively for all of us or they are not.


Why not?

iambiguous wrote:We'll need a context.


Pedro I Rengel wrote:But when you made that very objectivist assertion, you didn't need one. How about you explain why not without one as well?


Again, what on earth are we to make of this?

How can we speak of and assess substantively what individual subjects profess to know if we don't focus in on the context in which this knowledge is said to pertain to?

Or is he making some "technical" epistemological point that only "serious philosophers" can grasp?
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382

tiny nietzsche: what's something that isn't nothing, but still feels like nothing?
iambiguous: an exchange between Pedro and Smears?
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 38629
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Pedro's Corner

Postby Pedro I Rengel » Tue Oct 27, 2020 2:58 pm

iambiguous wrote:
Pedro I Rengel wrote:
iambiguous wrote:Well, maybe individual subjects are the ones who profess to know things, but the things that they profess to know [assuming human autonomy] are either true objectively for all of us or they are not.


Why not?

iambiguous wrote:We'll need a context.


Pedro I Rengel wrote:But when you made that very objectivist assertion, you didn't need one. How about you explain why not without one as well?


Again, what on earth are we to make of this?


What it done say? It ain't Chinese, brother.

You say: "Well, maybe individual subjects are the ones who profess to know things, but the things that they profess to know [assuming human autonomy] are either true objectively for all of us or they are not."

I say: "Why not?"

What's issa so complicated massa?

Seriously though, can you not answer the question?
User avatar
Pedro I Rengel
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6961
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2018 2:55 pm

Re: Pedro's Corner

Postby Pedro I Rengel » Tue Oct 27, 2020 2:59 pm

I have to go do morning things, hold your pen!
User avatar
Pedro I Rengel
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6961
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2018 2:55 pm

Re: Pedro's Corner

Postby Pedro I Rengel » Tue Oct 27, 2020 3:22 pm

By the way, I'm not trying to humiliate you or make a fool of you like you have mentioned you fear people are trying to do. I am only teasing you because you won't be honest about your political and philosophical leanings.

If you were, I would still attack you, like prom, we are after all on opposite sides of an important struggle, but you would have my respect. I have no interest in humiliating you personally, I am only interested in crushing the destructive ideals you promote.
User avatar
Pedro I Rengel
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6961
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2018 2:55 pm

Re: Pedro's Corner

Postby Pedro I Rengel » Tue Oct 27, 2020 3:25 pm

Pedro I Rengel wrote:By the way, I'm not trying to humiliate you or make a fool of you like you have mentioned you fear people are trying to do. I am only teasing you because you won't be honest about your political and philosophical leanings.

If you were, I would still attack you, like prom, we are after all on opposite sides of an important struggle, but you would have my respect. I have no interest in humiliating you personally, I am only interested in crushing the destructive ideals you promote.


For now, that means exposing the dishonesty and sidewaysness that in general accompanies that promotion. Only when both parties clearly and honestly represent their views can people be expected to listen and make up their own minds.

As you saw with my rendition of "robolutionary," I do believe there is a substance, a substantial belief, behind the dishonest and sideways promotional messages. That is the belief, or whatever belief may actually be the case, I would like at the forefront of the communist cause.
User avatar
Pedro I Rengel
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6961
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2018 2:55 pm

Re: Pedro's Corner

Postby Pedro I Rengel » Tue Oct 27, 2020 3:57 pm

Pedro I Rengel wrote:Markets are calm today. Calm seas don't move sails. But may's be we can make some headway, moving carefully. The saga that was suggested some weeks ago has come to an evident crossroads, and nobody knows whether to buy, to sell, or even to stay too still. None of us were reading the news, it was just the saga the price action suggested, and that did indeed play out.

A lot of upward potential, too much recent downward pressure... where to go.

We sit silently by.


If the trend of the day remains the way it is, it could signal a reversal.
User avatar
Pedro I Rengel
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6961
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2018 2:55 pm

Re: Pedro's Corner

Postby Pedro I Rengel » Tue Oct 27, 2020 3:58 pm

Will I trade assuming it will?

Do I have the gumption?
User avatar
Pedro I Rengel
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6961
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2018 2:55 pm

Re: Pedro's Corner

Postby Pedro I Rengel » Tue Oct 27, 2020 4:26 pm

I know this question is almost hopelessly dumb, but does anyone on this site play the banjo?
User avatar
Pedro I Rengel
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6961
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2018 2:55 pm

Re: Pedro's Corner

Postby iambiguous » Tue Oct 27, 2020 4:33 pm

Pedro I Rengel wrote:
iambiguous wrote:
Pedro I Rengel wrote:What it has to do with it, is that you unfailingly assail anybody that posts a view on something with your mad filtering program of anti-objectivist dasein or whatnot, granted when you do answer which isn't always. That view only has to have the faintest plausible attachment to objectivism, for you to do this.

But when it was a frank objectivist view expounded, you not only didn't assail him, which nobody can answer everybody all the time, but you actually did jump in... to congratulate him and wish him luck!

When he called you a "comrade," clearly signaling that you were in the same group of deranged objectivists, you remained silent.


Okay, he creates this fictional character who comes onto the thread spouting a devotion to Communism. At no time do I ever embrace "his" own arguments and concur that Communism is the one true path. In fact, to the best of my recollection my only response to "him" was an assessment of phoneutria.

Given that, what in the world can "he" be thanking me for except for my warning about her? I was wishing "him" luck in "his" dealings with her.

Or is Pedro phoneutria too?!


I'm not nearly beautiful enough.


And she does like to bring that to our attention, doesn't she? Something that is basically beyond our control at birth -- our "looks" -- and she gets lucky. Thanks Mom and Dad.

Pedro I Rengel wrote: You side stepped the argument again, iambiam, for some reason...


Yeah, "in your head" I sidestepped the argument. But that's how the objectivist minds works: if they think others do something then that makes it so.

Pedro I Rengel wrote:What it has to do with it, is that you unfailingly assail anybody that posts a view on something with your mad filtering program of anti-objectivist dasein or whatnot, granted when you do answer which isn't always. That view only has to have the faintest plausible attachment to objectivism, for you to do this.


Another obtuse intellectual contraption/accusation!

Note to others:

In regard any particular context that has come up on thbis thread, what exactly is he accusing me of here?

Pedro I Rengel wrote: But when it was a frank objectivist view expounded, you not only didn't assail him, which nobody can answer everybody all the time, but you actually did jump in... to congratulate him and wish him luck!


Again, this was all in regard to phoneutria, not Communism.

Pedro I Rengel wrote: When he called you a "comrade," clearly signaling that you were in the same group of deranged objectivists, you remained silent.


I'm sticking with this then:

Okay, he creates this fictional character who comes onto the thread spouting a devotion to Communism. At no time do I ever embrace "his" own arguments and concur that Communism is the one true path. In fact, to the best of my recollection my only response to "him" was an assessment of phoneutria.

Given that, what in the world can "he" be thanking me for except for my warning about her? I was wishing "him" luck in "his" dealings with her.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382

tiny nietzsche: what's something that isn't nothing, but still feels like nothing?
iambiguous: an exchange between Pedro and Smears?
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 38629
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Pedro's Corner

Postby Pedro I Rengel » Tue Oct 27, 2020 4:38 pm

So let me get this straight.

All and any clear, frank, self-declared (also somewhat monstrous, as he had already mentioned being ok with mass starvation to accomplish his objectivist utopia) objectivism is OK by you, as long as it is in response to phoneutria? Is that correct?

Because, like I said, it otherwise only takes the barest hint of believing in something concrete for you to bring up your fragmented self. At least, every time you answer.

No? Am I wrong? Is sometimes your goal not

iambiguous wrote:If there is one thing I am clearly preoccupied with at ILP, it is relationship between moral and political value judgments and the existential tajectory of the lives that we live.

And, in almost every thread in which I post about this relationship, I eventually get around to this:

1] I was raised in the belly of the working class beast. My family/community were very conservative. Abortion was a sin.
2] I was drafted into the Army and while on my "tour of duty" in Vietnam I happened upon politically radical folks who reconfigured my thinking about abortion. And God and lots of other things.
3] after I left the Army, I enrolled in college and became further involved in left wing politics. It was all the rage back then. I became a feminist. I married a feminist. I wholeheartedly embraced a woman's right to choose.
4] then came the calamity with Mary and John. I loved them both but their engagement was foundering on the rocks that was Mary's choice to abort their unborn baby.
5] back and forth we all went. I supported Mary but I could understand the points that John was making. I could understand the arguments being made on both sides. John was right from his side and Mary was right from hers.
6] I read William Barrett's Irrational Man and came upon his conjectures regarding "rival goods".
7] Then, over time, I abandoned an objectivist frame of mind that revolved around Marxism/feminism. Instead, I became more and more embedded in existentialism. And then as more years passed I became an advocate for moral nihilism.

This because in it are embedded two experiences that were of fundamental importance in shaping and then reconfiguring my own moral and political narratives.

Over the years, I have gone from an objectivist frame of mind [right vs. wrong, good vs. evil] to a way of thinking about morality in human interactions that basically revolves around moral nihilism.

And, then, in turn, this resulted in my tumbling down into a philosophical "hole" such that for all practical purposes, "I" became increasing more fragmented.

This hole:

If I am always of the opinion that 1] my own values are rooted in dasein and 2] that there are no objective values "I" can reach, then every time I make one particular moral/political leap, I am admitting that I might have gone in the other direction...or that I might just as well have gone in the other direction. Then "I" begins to fracture and fragment to the point there is nothing able to actually keep it all together. At least not with respect to choosing sides morally and politically.

In other words, I am no longer able to think of myself as being in sync with the "real me" in sync with "the right thing to do".

So, I decided to create this thread in order for others to at least make the attempt to describe their own value judgments existentially. Values as they became interwined over the course of their lives in "experiences, relationships and information, knowledge and ideas."

The part where theory is tested in practice out in particular contexts out in particular worlds.

This thread is not for those ever intent on providing us with "general descriptions" of human interactions. Interactions that are then described almost entirely using technical or academic language.

Instead, this thread is for trying to explain [to the best of your ability] why you think you came to value some behaviors over others. Linking both the experiences you had and the ideas that you came upon that shaped and molded your thinking in reacting to them.


?
User avatar
Pedro I Rengel
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6961
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2018 2:55 pm

Re: Pedro's Corner

Postby iambiguous » Tue Oct 27, 2020 4:42 pm

iambiguous wrote: We'll need a context.


Pedro I Rengel wrote: But when you made that very objectivist assertion, you didn't need one. How about you explain why not without one as well?


iambiguous wrote:Again, what on earth are we to make of this?


Pedro I Rengel wrote: What it done say? It ain't Chinese, brother.

You say: "Well, maybe individual subjects are the ones who profess to know things, but the things that they profess to know [assuming human autonomy] are either true objectively for all of us or they are not."

I say: "Why not?"

What's issa so complicated massa?

Seriously though, can you not answer the question?


Again, this is where I appreciate folks like phoneutria and promethean75. When they go the riposte route, they actually are witty and clever. You just come off as ridiculous.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382

tiny nietzsche: what's something that isn't nothing, but still feels like nothing?
iambiguous: an exchange between Pedro and Smears?
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 38629
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Pedro's Corner

Postby Pedro I Rengel » Tue Oct 27, 2020 4:45 pm

If you wanted a clown, you came to the wrong place.

If you wanted someone that would hold you to the things you say and claim to stand for, you came to the right one.

Instead of so many insults, why not a simple anser to a simple question about a simple declaration? Yes? No?
User avatar
Pedro I Rengel
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6961
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2018 2:55 pm

Re: Pedro's Corner

Postby Pedro I Rengel » Tue Oct 27, 2020 4:46 pm

iambiguous wrote:
iambiguous wrote: We'll need a context.


Pedro I Rengel wrote: But when you made that very objectivist assertion, you didn't need one. How about you explain why not without one as well?


iambiguous wrote:Again, what on earth are we to make of this?


Pedro I Rengel wrote: What it done say? It ain't Chinese, brother.

You say: "Well, maybe individual subjects are the ones who profess to know things, but the things that they profess to know [assuming human autonomy] are either true objectively for all of us or they are not."

I say: "Why not?"

What's issa so complicated massa?

Seriously though, can you not answer the question?
User avatar
Pedro I Rengel
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6961
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2018 2:55 pm

Re: Pedro's Corner

Postby Pedro I Rengel » Tue Oct 27, 2020 4:49 pm

I made a trade that assumes it's a trading range day. But, again, I was cowardly, and moved the stop loss to -$20 (that is a $20 profit) instead of letting the trade ride out like I shoulda.

Uncertainty is a scary monster.
User avatar
Pedro I Rengel
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6961
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2018 2:55 pm

Re: Pedro's Corner

Postby iambiguous » Tue Oct 27, 2020 4:59 pm

Pedro I Rengel wrote: So let me get this straight.


Translation: "Let me tell you why you should think about this only as I do, moron".

He no doubt picked this up from phoneutria, who picked it up from Satyr.

Pedro I Rengel wrote: All and any clear, frank, self-declared (also somewhat monstrous, as he had already mentioned being ok with mass starvation to accomplish his objectivist utopia) objectivism is OK by you, as long as it is in response to phoneutria? Is that correct?


You created this carricature and phoneutria responded to him. Now either you are phoneutria or she was duped as well by you. In any event, my post was only in reference to phoneutria and not to his "views" on Communism.

Or, sure, maybe phoneutria created you here. But that's what can happen when stupid "games" of this sort are played.

iambiguous wrote:If there is one thing I am clearly preoccupied with at ILP, it is relationship between moral and political value judgments and the existential tajectory of the lives that we live.

And, in almost every thread in which I post about this relationship, I eventually get around to this:

1] I was raised in the belly of the working class beast. My family/community were very conservative. Abortion was a sin.
2] I was drafted into the Army and while on my "tour of duty" in Vietnam I happened upon politically radical folks who reconfigured my thinking about abortion. And God and lots of other things.
3] after I left the Army, I enrolled in college and became further involved in left wing politics. It was all the rage back then. I became a feminist. I married a feminist. I wholeheartedly embraced a woman's right to choose.
4] then came the calamity with Mary and John. I loved them both but their engagement was foundering on the rocks that was Mary's choice to abort their unborn baby.
5] back and forth we all went. I supported Mary but I could understand the points that John was making. I could understand the arguments being made on both sides. John was right from his side and Mary was right from hers.
6] I read William Barrett's Irrational Man and came upon his conjectures regarding "rival goods".
7] Then, over time, I abandoned an objectivist frame of mind that revolved around Marxism/feminism. Instead, I became more and more embedded in existentialism. And then as more years passed I became an advocate for moral nihilism.

This because in it are embedded two experiences that were of fundamental importance in shaping and then reconfiguring my own moral and political narratives.

Over the years, I have gone from an objectivist frame of mind [right vs. wrong, good vs. evil] to a way of thinking about morality in human interactions that basically revolves around moral nihilism.

And, then, in turn, this resulted in my tumbling down into a philosophical "hole" such that for all practical purposes, "I" became increasing more fragmented.

This hole:

If I am always of the opinion that 1] my own values are rooted in dasein and 2] that there are no objective values "I" can reach, then every time I make one particular moral/political leap, I am admitting that I might have gone in the other direction...or that I might just as well have gone in the other direction. Then "I" begins to fracture and fragment to the point there is nothing able to actually keep it all together. At least not with respect to choosing sides morally and politically.

In other words, I am no longer able to think of myself as being in sync with the "real me" in sync with "the right thing to do".

So, I decided to create this thread in order for others to at least make the attempt to describe their own value judgments existentially. Values as they became interwined over the course of their lives in "experiences, relationships and information, knowledge and ideas."

The part where theory is tested in practice out in particular contexts out in particular worlds.

This thread is not for those ever intent on providing us with "general descriptions" of human interactions. Interactions that are then described almost entirely using technical or academic language.

Instead, this thread is for trying to explain [to the best of your ability] why you think you came to value some behaviors over others. Linking both the experiences you had and the ideas that you came upon that shaped and molded your thinking in reacting to them.


Pedro I Rengel wrote: ?


!
Last edited by iambiguous on Tue Oct 27, 2020 5:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382

tiny nietzsche: what's something that isn't nothing, but still feels like nothing?
iambiguous: an exchange between Pedro and Smears?
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 38629
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Pedro's Corner

Postby iambiguous » Tue Oct 27, 2020 5:06 pm

Pedro I Rengel wrote:If you wanted a clown, you came to the wrong place.

If you wanted someone that would hold you to the things you say and claim to stand for, you came to the right one.

Instead of so many insults, why not a simple anser to a simple question about a simple declaration? Yes? No?


Again, he will post things like this without the least bit embarrassment. And how dare others give the wrong simple answer to any simple question he might ask.

After all, there is ever and always only one answer: his. Whether the question revolves around Communism or any other context in which value judgments come into conflict.

Again, it's not what he believes but that what he believes is what all others are obligated to believe. Or risk his "scorn". 8)
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382

tiny nietzsche: what's something that isn't nothing, but still feels like nothing?
iambiguous: an exchange between Pedro and Smears?
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 38629
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Pedro's Corner

Postby Pedro I Rengel » Tue Oct 27, 2020 5:11 pm

iambiguous wrote:You created this carricature and phoneutria responded to him


My man, you responded to him. With "good luck!" And let it sit when he called you "comrade." And it was hardly a caricature, it was a flawless sketch. You did not, however, respond with

iambiguous wrote:If there is one thing I am clearly preoccupied with at ILP, it is relationship between moral and political value judgments and the existential tajectory of the lives that we live.

And, in almost every thread in which I post about this relationship, I eventually get around to this:

1] I was raised in the belly of the working class beast. My family/community were very conservative. Abortion was a sin.
2] I was drafted into the Army and while on my "tour of duty" in Vietnam I happened upon politically radical folks who reconfigured my thinking about abortion. And God and lots of other things.
3] after I left the Army, I enrolled in college and became further involved in left wing politics. It was all the rage back then. I became a feminist. I married a feminist. I wholeheartedly embraced a woman's right to choose.
4] then came the calamity with Mary and John. I loved them both but their engagement was foundering on the rocks that was Mary's choice to abort their unborn baby.
5] back and forth we all went. I supported Mary but I could understand the points that John was making. I could understand the arguments being made on both sides. John was right from his side and Mary was right from hers.
6] I read William Barrett's Irrational Man and came upon his conjectures regarding "rival goods".
7] Then, over time, I abandoned an objectivist frame of mind that revolved around Marxism/feminism. Instead, I became more and more embedded in existentialism. And then as more years passed I became an advocate for moral nihilism.

This because in it are embedded two experiences that were of fundamental importance in shaping and then reconfiguring my own moral and political narratives.

Over the years, I have gone from an objectivist frame of mind [right vs. wrong, good vs. evil] to a way of thinking about morality in human interactions that basically revolves around moral nihilism.

And, then, in turn, this resulted in my tumbling down into a philosophical "hole" such that for all practical purposes, "I" became increasing more fragmented.

This hole:

If I am always of the opinion that 1] my own values are rooted in dasein and 2] that there are no objective values "I" can reach, then every time I make one particular moral/political leap, I am admitting that I might have gone in the other direction...or that I might just as well have gone in the other direction. Then "I" begins to fracture and fragment to the point there is nothing able to actually keep it all together. At least not with respect to choosing sides morally and politically.

In other words, I am no longer able to think of myself as being in sync with the "real me" in sync with "the right thing to do".

So, I decided to create this thread in order for others to at least make the attempt to describe their own value judgments existentially. Values as they became interwined over the course of their lives in "experiences, relationships and information, knowledge and ideas."

The part where theory is tested in practice out in particular contexts out in particular worlds.

This thread is not for those ever intent on providing us with "general descriptions" of human interactions. Interactions that are then described almost entirely using technical or academic language.

Instead, this thread is for trying to explain [to the best of your ability] why you think you came to value some behaviors over others. Linking both the experiences you had and the ideas that you came upon that shaped and molded your thinking in reacting to them.


.
User avatar
Pedro I Rengel
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6961
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2018 2:55 pm

Re: Pedro's Corner

Postby Pedro I Rengel » Tue Oct 27, 2020 5:12 pm

iambiguous wrote:
Pedro I Rengel wrote:If you wanted a clown, you came to the wrong place.

If you wanted someone that would hold you to the things you say and claim to stand for, you came to the right one.

Instead of so many insults, why not a simple anser to a simple question about a simple declaration? Yes? No?


Again, he will post things like this without the least bit embarrassment. And how dare others give the wrong simple answer to any simple question he might ask.

After all, there is ever and always only one answer: his. Whether the question revolves around Communism or any other context in which value judgments come into conflict.

Again, it's not what he believes but that what he believes is what all others are obligated to believe. Or risk his "scorn". 8)


Well, I mean. Honestly. I am forcing you to believe what I believe or face my scorn because when you said

"Well, maybe individual subjects are the ones who profess to know things, but the things that they profess to know [assuming human autonomy] are either true objectively for all of us or they are not."

I asked

"Why not?"

?
User avatar
Pedro I Rengel
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6961
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2018 2:55 pm

PreviousNext

Return to The Sandbox



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users